town hall meeting july 15 2009 manchester nh n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Town Hall Meeting July 15, 2009 Manchester, NH PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Town Hall Meeting July 15, 2009 Manchester, NH

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 12

Town Hall Meeting July 15, 2009 Manchester, NH - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 114 Views
  • Uploaded on

Town Hall Meeting July 15, 2009 Manchester, NH. Issues submitted to IFTA, Inc. One USDOT Number – multiple IFTA licensees 3% Audit Requirement New VT Surcharge Re-Examination and Re-Audit/Reasonable Cause How to get rid of the gas tax CDs for ABM. Multiple accounts tied to one USDOT number

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Town Hall Meeting July 15, 2009 Manchester, NH


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Town Hall MeetingJuly 15, 2009Manchester, NH

    2. Issues submitted to IFTA, Inc. One USDOT Number – multiple IFTA licensees 3% Audit Requirement New VT Surcharge Re-Examination and Re-Audit/Reasonable Cause How to get rid of the gas tax CDs for ABM

    3. Multiple accounts tied to one USDOT number Two accounts active; one inactive In this example, a carrier allowed two owner/operators to use its USDOT number to apply for an IFTA license. One of those owner/operators did not file tax returns and the license was revoked. The carrier received IFTA citations because of the owner/operator with a revoked license.

    4. IFTA Audit Committee's survey on the 3% audit coverage requirement.  Although 35 jurisdictions responded to the survey that the 3% requirement is appropriate (compared to 14 who responded that the requirement is too high, 1 who responded that the requirement is too low), support for change to the 3% requirement is exactly even, 25 for and 25 against.   Also, 32 jurisdictions responded they encountered difficulty in meeting the 3% requirement and provided various reasons.   

    5. Since there still seems to be some concerns regarding the 3% requirement, is there plan to review the 3% requirement? 

    6. How is the 3% requirement actually arrived at so that one can say whether it is appropriate or not? 

    7. Has the 3% requirement been compared to other yardsticks to see whether it is too high or too low?  I have taken a look at some other revenue departments' website and found that risk assessment contributes a lot to the appropriate level of audit coverage, so that a fixed audit coverage may not work all the time.

    8. Should risk and potential revenue loss be considered instead of a blanket 3% requirement?   I also found in one website that considering the risk, targeted audit coverage on a specific sector is just around 1.2%, so that the department can focus their attention and resources to other higher risk sectors. 

    9. Should some flexibility be provided on the 3% requirement, or are there alternatives to just auditing 3% (such as demonstration of internal control) that we can consider so that we can make best use of our audit resources?

    10. New Vermont Surcharge

    11. Re-Examination and Re-Audit Provisions Reasonable Cause

    12. How to get rid of the gas tax?